Reader Posts
« previous | TPM CAFÉ READER POSTS HOME | next »
Barack's Telling Us What We Need To Hear - Not What We Want To Hear!
I guess I just don't comprehend what I read or something.
Looking at Barack Obama's "bitter" comments below, they show me NOTHING in the way that he is downgrading small town America - quite the opposite in fact - where he's saying THEY FELL THROUGH, etc.. When he says, admin's promise something and it never happens - he's speaking UP for the towns, not down, in my humble opinion.
"You go into these small towns in Pennsylvania and, like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them," Obama said. "And they fell through the Clinton Administration, and the Bush Administration, and each successive administration has said that somehow these communities are gonna regenerate and they have not." "And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
As for the comments about turning bitter and clinging to guns, religion or being anti-immigrant or anti-trade......I read them as saying, SOME turn to guns (violence), SOME turn to religion (pray for guidance), SOME turn anti-immigrant and anti-trade -- because they lost their jobs in, their view - because of them.
Obama's saying that's how they relieve their frustrations or anger.
The ONLY thing Obama might have said differently, in my view is by leaving out the word SMALL. Big city folks experience the same anger and frustrations. Small cities though, normally had one or two factories in town that EVERYBODY worked at -- now because of NAFTA unfair practices, they've lost those jobs. In big cities though, there's a better chance for a job replacement.
Barack Obama's saying that politicians come around during election cycles and promise to bring more jobs; but nothing ever developes.
People are BITTER for that reason.
Comments (4)
What Obama is not... an elitist.
What Obama is... an intellectual.
There's a difference. One gets to be an elitist by being privileged. One gets to be an intellectual by being smart.
April 14, 2008 10:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's not forget that this whole thing was an answer to a question about voting patterns not changing very fast.
He was highlighting - arguably inartfully - the concept that, after giving up on the government as an agent of change, people tend to vote against their economic interest, and vote instead on "hot button issues". The Republicans exploit this by "wedging" the electorate to their side - they don't have to promise anything other than "you'll keep your guns and we won't shut down your church". Which, of course, the Dems wouldn't do either, but they are portrayed to these voters through a tainted media as if they were.
The "What's wrong with Kansas" theory is pretty much accepted within the Dem leadership, and it's been clear to everybody that the Dem tent had gotten a bit too small and too exclusive to be useful.
Obama's approach - even before he entered politics - has always been inclusive. He was working with churches despite the fact that he was skeptical of organized religion. He was a Constitutional Law teacher, so he know what the Second Amendment means, and he would restore the Constitution to its rightful place.
Let's not let this issue keep getting twisted. The facts are where they are, his opinions are clear and well documented, and his past actions speak 1000 times more clearly than any clumsy choice of words.
I thought this was supposed to be about record, not "words", remember?
April 14, 2008 10:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Buckeye and Memoryaid -- you both said it much better than I ever could.
It's the media that's allowing Hillary/McCain to get away with pushing this story and others like it.
When you look voter's choices, between Hillary, McCain and Obama - as you know, I feel Obama is our best choice.
Hillary was caught 4 times in VIDEO'S lying to American's about her Bosnia sniper story. Her husband also lied about it. Their personal attacks on Obama during her campaign, and the way she ran it. Her own campaign strategist is found to have been working FOR Columbia while Hillary claims not to agree with the trade law with them. Her own husband made money, thousands, working for people in Columbia and doing speeches. She supported Nafta for years before being against it. Not to mention having the RELIVE the Bill Clinton sex scandal and impeachment - I don't want that.
John McCain - well, stories about his Senate sevice on the Vietnam POWs got me started not liking this man - but his flipping after 2000 to embrace Bush after the way Bush's camp treated him, his embracing Iraq's war for many years to come, his insistance that the economy problems are psycological, flipping on that now, the way he treated Huckabee and Romney during their campaign, his flipping on taxcuts being bad then good.
Each and everyone of them have problems. Most of Obama's however, have been his pastor's comments and his mis-speaking on this bitter issue. It's not been about his campaign, the opposite in fact -- it's been called one of the best ever ran by political pundits. It's not been about his policies or past votes. It's personal. His religion, race, his name, his wife mispeaks and now this.
Campaigns are all about Soap Opras now -- it' no longer about what they will do in office.
April 14, 2008 10:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
http://factcheck.barackobama.com/factcheck/2008/04/11/transcript_of_obamas_remarks_a.php
April 14, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Post a Comment